×

You are using an outdated browser that does not fully support the intranda viewer.
As a result, some pages may not be displayed correctly.

We recommend you use one of the following browsers:

Full text

Title
New perspectives to save cultural heritage
Author
Altan, M. Orhan

Level of
Significance
Purpose of
Documentation
Restor.
Rehab.
Preser.
Arch.
Primary
LI
L2
LI
LI
Secondary
LI
L2
L2
L2
Tertiary
L2
L3
L3
L3
Restor. = Restoration; Rehab. = Rehabilitation;
Preser. = Preservation; Arch. = Archival
4.2.3 Assess Required Rate. Rate expresses the speed of
survey operations. The more urgent the need for
documentation, the higher the level of required performance:
Intense urgency requires Level 1 rate of survey
Moderate urgency requires Level 2 rate of survey
Light urgency accepts Level 3 rate of survey
4.3 Actual Performances versus Required Performances
At this point, we have outlined how to obtain the following:
The actual performance of each method in the accuracy,
thoroughness, and rate attributes
The required performance of the project in the accuracy,
thoroughness, and rate attributes
Proceed as follows:
(1) Match actual performances of methods with the required
performances of the project. A matching matrix would look
like the following.
Method
Accuracy
Thoroughness
Rate
Act.
Req.
Act.
Req.
Act.
Req.
HM
EP
RP
Act. = Actual; Req. = Required.
5. CONCLUSIONS
A previous paper (Elwazani, 2002) investigated the effect of
the contextual conditions on the performance of measured
survey methods and ended with establishing a set of standards
for evaluating such effect. The purpose of this paper was to
devise a procedure for evaluating the performance of measured
survey methods—into which the developed performance
standards are integrated. To such end, this paper laid out a
basis for the procedure and described the procedure’s data
collection and data processing functions.
The data collection function accounts for data about the main
aspects of the survey project, including the purpose of survey,
significance of the survey subject, urgency of survey, and
contextual conditions. The data about the latter describes the
conditions of the 13 building, site, and climatic factors. In
types and extent of data, this function is designed to
commensurately feed the “processing” steps in the subsequent
data processing function.
The data processing function is geared to produce actual
performances of methods in accuracy, thoroughness, and rate,
and then to compare actual performances with the project
required performances. To produce the actual performances,
the function begins with the methods performance values
obtained from the developed performance standards. The
function then makes use of the available optimal performances
and absolute performance values by means of a series of simple
equations to produce the actual performances.
The remaining steps of the data processing function evaluate
the survey project’s required performances before comparing
them with the actual performances. These steps establish level
scales for required performances in accuracy, thoroughness,
and rate attributes and then, in a special assessment technique,
show how these required performances can be determined.
Once the required performances are in hand, steps for deciding
upon appropriate methods follow.
(2) Determine what methods would satisfy individual required
performances. Building on the results of the above step, a
plausible determination scenario would look like this:
Required Performance
Satisfying Methods
Accuracy
HM, RP
Thoroughness
RP
Rate
EP, RP
4.4 Methods Selection
Determine what methods would independently satisfy the
entire set of performance factors. Referring to the preceding
scenario, it is obvious that rectified photography (RP) is the
only method that would, by itself, satisfy the entire set of
required performances—for this part of survey subject.
REFERENCES
Elwazani, S. 2002. Effect of Contextual conditions on the
Performance of Measured Survey Methods. In: Strategies for
the World’s Cultural Heritage: Preservation in a Globalised
World: Principles, Practices, Perspectives: Proceedings of the
ICOMOS I3 lh General Assembly Scientific Symposium,
Madrid, Spain, 1-5 December 2002, ed. the Spanish National
Committee of ICOMOS, Madrid, Spain, pp. 17-20. Madrid,
Spain: The Spanish National Committee of ICOMOS, 2002.
LeBlanc, F. and Gray, C. 2002. The Getty Conservation
Institute Proposed Partnership with ICOMOS-CIPA for
Recoding, Documentation and Information Management. In:
Surveying and Documentation of Historic Buildings,
Monuments, Sites - Traditional and Modern Methods:
Proceedings of CIPA 18 lh International Symposium, Potsdam,
Germany, 18-21 September 2001, ed. Jorg Albertz, pp. 315-21.
Germany, CIPA 2001 Organizing Committee, 2002.